NASA, Richard C Hoagland, & Expat are all full of Shit!

http://www.enterprisemission.com/tran1.html

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 1 of 4 (First Half-Hour)

The following is a transcript of the radio interview that was aired late Thursday night - March 21, 1996 - into early Friday morning - March 22, 1996 - on the weeknight program, "Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell". The interview was conducted by Art Bell. The participants were Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston.

Art Bell was attempting to get the scoop on what really took place at the historic press briefing at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. earlier in the day - where Richard Hoagland and a team of scientists and engineers presented their remarkable Moon findings.

This press briefing centered around information kept from the American public by NASA - concerning possible artificial structures - or ruins of an ancient "alien" civilization - discovered on the Moon, during the Apollo missions.

After a few words about "hard water", Art got to the "hard facts" and the program opens with the reading of a few faxes.

[key] AB= Art Bell RH= Richard Hoagland KJ= Ken Johnston

AB: From the high desert, in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening or good morning, as the case may be.

Welcome to another edition of the largest live overnight radio talk program in America - maybe in the world, actually.

This is "Coast to Coast AM" and I'm Art Bell.

Now, I know a lot of you - zillions of you - actually, want to know what is going on with Richard Hoagland and the news conference at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C..

Well, you're about to find out. If they won't tell you - and many of them didn't - we will. Because coming up in just a moment is Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston, who was NASA's data and photo-documentation supervisor.

That coming up in just a moment.

... (break for messages)

AB: Alright, this fax is typical.

"Dear Art, it is beginning to look like the only way most of us are going to learn what happened at the press conference, will be if you tell us tonight. I learned from the National Press Club, there were about 18 cameras and 60 guests at the briefing. C-SPAN told me they didn't cover it because they had "other things to do", and because they weren't told who would be there, besides Richard Hoagland".

AB: But there was coverage.

"Dear Art, I have a tape of the following report, with video graphics, which was broadcast on our local news at 5:00 PM, Channel 11, NBC, in Minneapolis - 'Does NASA Have Something to Hide?'

A private science research group, called 'The Mars Mission', thinks so.

The former NASA scientists and engineers and other researchers said today, that suppressed NASA and Soviet photographs show apparent lunar ruins that may have been created by another civilization."

AB: I want to certainly thank Adrian Abbott, at KOH, which actually is Citadel Communications, after hearing our show Friday night; actually a repeat of the Friday night show.

She got a hold of ABC, and ABC ran some actualities from the news conference. ABC ran a story on the news conference. So, our sincere thanks to our friends up at Citadel, and Adrian and the whole group.

The IRC chat channel, I understand, was something of a disaster. That's because the IRC chat channel is like anarchy. In other words, you've got a million people on there at once, and so that's what you get - a million people on there at once.

That's why I don't do it here on the air; it's simply too diverting, and too anarchistic, for my tastes... and so I guess that was a little rough.

In the meantime, knowing that you would want to know what really went on, I have a very tired Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston on the phone, all the way from - I would guess - somewhere in Washington, D.C.

Richard?

RH: Good morning. (tired chuckle)

AB: Hi.

RH: From high atop Capitol Hill, the view out my window here, is absolutely stunning.

AB: Is it?

RH: I am looking at the Capitol dome of the United States Capitol, in the center of power of the United States, the last reigning superpower of the western world.

And you know, I can't help thinking - as I look to the left I can see the Washington Monument and just beyond that I can see the White House all glistening in the dark on this beautiful spring evening -

I can't help thinking there's something radically wrong with this Republic ... where a group of scientists who were willing to come forward and talk about a problem with this government, can not get coverage on most of the news outlets in the country ... after they spent a lot of time and effort and put in a two hour major presentation - which was carried *live* to the rest of the world.

TeleMundo, carried this program from Miami, by satellite, live to all of South America, Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean...

AB: Wow!

RH: I had a live conversation with the producer, afterwards. They were so excited by the photographs; they were so entranced by the analysis; they were so in tune with the historical aspect at what we are proposing and with what has to happen now...

And in this country, it's as if it did not happen...

And we're the ones that spent, guys, 20 billion dollars to go to the Moon.

Something - is - wrong.

AB: You're absolutely right.

World-wide coverage everywhere else in the World but *here*.

People were searching frantically: C-SPAN, CNN,... I guess ABC did give you some coverage?

RH: Well, the coverage is very intriguing, because you're getting a lot of conflicting reports that don't square with our reports. We had, as I said - there were like 15 to 16, 18 cameras, something like that. You know, you couldn't see the back because of the number of cameras!

C-SPAN did show up at 10:30. C-SPAN put in an appearance.

AB: Alright, I was getting all kinds of reports about C-SPAN.

C-SPAN said, "Well, we didn't cover it".

Then they said, "We did cover it, but we're not going to broadcast it". This is what they were telling people.

RH: Well, what I find bizarre, is if they are not going to broadcast it, why bother to show up?

AB: That's true.

RH: And why show up?... we started at 9:00 AM.

They didn't show up 'til 10:30. We went to 11:15 - actually 11:20, and then the Press Club had to ask us to close down, because they had another event happening in 40 minutes.

There was a major banquet taking place ... and this was at the grand ballroom. This was the center stage of the Press Club where lots of other events were scheduled, so they were very kind to us, to give us another 20 minutes over the time that we had reserved.

But, why show up, if you're not going to put it on the air?

AB: I agree. I agree.

And there were thousands of angry phone calls to C-SPAN.

(laughs).

I know a few things. C-SPAN put in a special telephone response thing - just for you, and so there was a very great deal going on, Richard.

RH: Did anybody tape that?

AB: Did anybody tape what?

RH: I actually did not call, so I didn't hear, but I understand that when you called up, you got one of these dial selector things: "If you would like to know about the Hoagland Press Conference, press ..." Something or other.

AB: That's right. I don't know if anybody taped it. I didn't, but I got a lot of reports on it, so I know it's true.

RH: Well see, I have not talked with Brian Lamb directly, and I would love to, because I don't understand the logic.

If you think we are silly and "out-to-lunch", fine. Ignore us. If you don't think we're silly and you think there's something interesting, why not put us on the air?

But if you think we're silly, and you still show up and you put it on tape so that there's a record of it, but you're not going to use it, that's kind of a waste of time and effort and money, isn't it?

AB: Well, I have to but wonder at a program that ran - instead of what would have been you, "live" - something about "FDR's Name Used in Ideological Arguments" or some obscure something.

RH: Whaaaat??

KJ: (chuckling)

AB: Yeah, something like that. Anyway,...

RH: I can hear someone chuckling in the background.

AB: Well, it's true. Ken Johnston is probably the chuckler and he's on the line with us, and Ken, you were NASA's data and photo-documentation supervisor. Is that correct?

KJ: Well, good-morning Art.

I'd like to kind of clear that up just a little bit.

I was working for one of the prime contractors for NASA at the time. That was Brown-Root and Northrop. It was a consortium between the Brown-Root Corporation and the Northrop Corporation at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory.

They had the contract for the processing of the lunar samples and my particular function was a supervisor of the data and photo control department, which handled all of the photographic, as well as written documentation about the lunar samples.

AB: So, everything that came in, went through you?

KJ: That's correct.

AB: Alright, how did you get involved with Richard Hoagland and why and what is it that you believe?

KJ: Well, that's a rather interesting story in itself.

About almost a year ago - as a matter of fact, May the second, it will be a year - when Mr. Hoagland was out in the Seattle, Washington area doing a conference; a seminar on the "Mars/Moon Connection"...

As a matter of fact, one of the gentlemen who listens to your program regularly, told me about Mr. Hoagland's research on Mars - the "Face" on Mars - something I had been interested in way back when I was more involved in the space program.

So, I'd read his book and I thought, "What a great opportunity to go in and hear the man speak in person."

And particularly since he's going to be talking about a connection between Mars and the program I was very intimately involved in: the Moon.

AB: Sure.

KJ: So, I wrote up a letter of introduction and kind of told him a little bit about myself, and what I'd done and been involved in - the photographic portion of that mission; and showed up a little bit early, in hopes I could get him to autograph my book.

One of his associates, Rhonda Eckland, read the letter and said, "Oh, don't move. You're the guy we've been looking for!"

RH: (Laughing heartily)

KJ: And I kind of stood there a little bit concerned, but she went in the back, and the next thing I know I'm being ushered in the back and introduced to Richard.

Long story short: After the seminar, we made arrangements for them to come over to my house the next day and take a look at some of the data that I'd maintained - about 500-1000 photographs in my own personal collection.

And I explained to them that I had put a complete set of all the photographic data from the Apollo missions, at my college alma mater - back home at Oklahoma City; at Oklahoma City University.

RH: And you gotta understand, Art; this was literally days after the bombing. And the idea that there was a placement archive of photographs sequestered in Oklahoma City, was pretty amazing to me - given the context of what was going on at the time.

AB: Well, I didn't even know that.

They were blown-up in that explosion?

KJ: No, no.

RH: No, no, no, no.

AB: O.K.

RH: But, the coincidence of that, of all the - you know - it's like that old joke from "Casablanca" - "Of all the gin joints in all the world".

The idea that Ken had placed these photographs, outside NASA, 30 years ago, in that university - literally across the street ...

KJ: It was. It was just a few blocks down the street and when I was in Oklahoma City - of course that area [was] cordoned off and you couldn't drive next to it - but I was able to drive close enough, that I could actually see the tragedy that had happened there. And of course the city was still in a state of shock.

AB: Alright. Ken, what do you think. First of all, did you have in that collection - photographs, that are now not available from NASA?

KJ: Well, from what I understand from the photographic experts, the prints that I have and the negatives and the film strips that I have - these were made off of the first generation, the originals.

And the data they are able to extract from it and things that we can see in those is so far superior to anything they've been able to get from other repositories, that I guess the answer is "yes", there's a lot of things in there that you can see that you wouldn't ordinarily be able to find on material that you would get from other sources.

AB: Alright, well you're their photographic person.

So, I'll ask you a hard question:

Is it because you've got a close-in generation of photographs that you can see these things, or in your opinion, were there things - that in later photographs - simply were erased?

KJ: I think I probably ought to defer that one to Richard, since they've analyzed it.

Mostly, I just wound up the person that had a little foresight to think that we shouldn't throw all of the stuff away.

AB: Hmm.

KJ: In other words...

RH: Okay, here is a very critical political question, Art, because when we got Ken's data, and there is a massive amount - it is voluminous - and we have only really, intensively looked at a tiny portion of a large collection of prints and other materials that he has bequeathed to us on this long-term loan arrangement.

AB: Yes.

RH: The first thing that I wanted to do of course, was to check with the official sources - with NSSDC, our friends here in Washington - that we went to a year ago and had the two-day meeting. We took eight people into the lab and spent two days looking at the photographic processes and the archiving and the record-keeping, and why were there duplicate numbers of the same frames that were different.

You know, the so-called 4822 problem and all that.

AB: Yes. Oh yes.

RH: And I had one member of our team literally drive 10,000 miles coast to coast with a very complex piece of equipment - from Los Angeles to Goddard - set it up and go through tens of thousands of feet of film stock - in preparation for this analysis.

And then Kerry Clark, my own administrative assistant now - who formerly ran a major photographic laboratory in New York and has been working with us for about three years on this - she went down to Washington from New York and spent two days with John, looking at the stills; the Hasselblad stills.

And we had taken the frame numbers for comparison, from Ken's data.

And the first thing we found, Ken - and I don't know whether you realize this - is that the numbers on the photographs you have, are not the same numbers that are now out of the archive in Washington, here.

AB: Hmm.

KJ: That's amazing.

RH: Particularly that panorama- the one where you can see the intense geometric haze above the horizon, 360 degrees around - that was misfiled.

And they looked and they looked and they looked, and it was only because the head of the lab had remembered seeing that - somewhere else, [from] his own memory, that he was able to go and put his hands on it.

And it was one of those puzzles, like well, "God, how'd this get in here? This shouldn't be in here. This is misfiled."

So, we put in an order - a very complex order - months ago, to get comparison photographs so we could look at them side by side, prior to this morning's briefing.

AB: Sure.

RH: And that order has been delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed, and finally - three days ago - I had Kerry call the head of the lab, NSSDC, and he had sworn that this had gone out by Fed Ex, a week ago, and he went to another office and found it sitting on someone's desk.

AB: Oh!

RH: And we did not get it in time to make the comparison.

So, in actuality, Art, I can't answer your question, except qualitatively - it appears that most of this information has disappeared from the current record, just because of generational problems.

AB: Well, a lot of things are found just sitting on desks, in Washington.

RH: Yes, in other words, there seem to be what we would term, "foot-dragging" - in the extreme.

And this is - this is a part of the pattern that we have noticed. I have not seen any overt examples, that I could put my finger on, in this lunar work - of outright retouching or air-brushing or faking of pictures, or destruction of data.

What I find, is a pattern of deception, a pattern of losing information, of mis-labeling it, of publishing catalogs where the photographs appear black.

When you order the picture, the picture is stunning and very good.

In other words, I see a pattern of - of trying to deter people, trying to dissuade people - from getting access to the data.

But, if you're persistent and you will not be deterred, ultimately the real data can be found.

And this gives me reason to believe... that someone, somewhere in NASA, realizes that someday this is going to come out.

AB: Alright.

RH: And you know that the major crime is not the crime.

It's always the cover-up of the crime.

AB: Sure.

RH: So this looks like plausible deniability, because at any point that we get in the process and find real data, someone can always say, "Oh, they ran out of ink", or "Oh, they had somebody in from the temp office who filed it wrong that day."

You can never pin them for the mistake.

AB: Alright Richard, very quickly, I've got to ask you about this:

A number of people said that the reason C-SPAN did not cover, was because you had refused to give them a list of who was going to be there.

RH: Well, we have held two press conferences before at the National Press Club on this investigation.

The first was in 1988, when the Russians launched to Mars. We thought it was important that they go and take pictures of Cydonia.

The second was on the date that the Mars Observer spacecraft was supposed to enter Mars orbit and we had planned to hold a press conference at that time, anyway, to encourage NASA - with Mars Observer - to take new pictures of Cydonia.

AB: Yes.

RH: So, we had a hundred show up. Alright? We had a hundred show up this time. We had 18 cameras and we specifically did not reveal Ken's name, or Marv Czarnik's name, or the other participants - to simply protect them from undue pressure, prior to laying out the data.

The fact that everybody else showed up, and didn't claim that we hadn't revealed their names; and that we had a track record of providing a good news story. We had promised them responsible people, formerly with NASA. We did go to the extent of saying that. We did go to the extent of saying specifically in terms of photographs were going to be discussed - from inside NASA - and what was on them.

The idea that you don't provide a name, I mean, in Washington - sources are commonly withheld until the last minute at a press conference.

This is not unusual at all.

AB: Sure.

RH: That, frankly, is an excuse that will not stand the light of day.

AB: Alright. Well, I had to run it by you.

Ken, you've looked at these photographs.

Do you see the same anomalies?

Do you see the same things that Richard Hoagland sees?

KJ: The more and more I've been exposed to looking at the data, and realizing - actually without the aid of any kind of instrumentation, you can actually see some of the anomalies on just the raw film and pictures itself.

One of the most striking things I have found, and one of the comments that one of the analysts was making is - if you really want to see what somebody doesn't want you to see on the Moon, look in the visor of the person being photographed.

And it was a rather unique experience. We started looking at that, with magnifying glasses and looking at the reflections on the curvature of the face masks of the astronauts on the lunar surface.

And there's some rather striking pictures that show what appears to be constructed structures, ladders, portals; some very, very interesting things in the visor in a number of pictures.

So, the answer is yes, there are definitely things you can see with the naked eye. And then when you start getting some of the enhancement and techniques that Alex Cook had done - just a young man on his own, in a darkroom working by himself...

AB: Ken, I'm going to ask you to hold it there.

KJ: Okay.

AB: We're breaking here at the bottom of the hour and we'll pick this back up out of the bottom of the hour.

A contractor for NASA - actually with all the data and photo documentation; A supervisor, Ken Johnston.

And Richard Hoagland.

Back in a moment. NEXT Half-Hour

Transcribed by Tom Talley (tomt@nando.net), Proofreading by James Shannon (jamesjs@unixg.ubc.ca), HTML by Keith Rowland (keithr@rowlandnet.com).

http://www.enterprisemission.com/tran2.html

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 2 of 4 (Second Half-Hour)

(station break and then announcer with the lead-in:

"... this is the CBC Radio Network.")

AB: It sure is. And I have with me, Richard C. Hoagland, who was a science advisor to Walter Cronkite, did some work for NASA - and for a long time has been an advocate that there's much more on the moon and Mars, than we've been told.

With him tonight, is Ken Johnston; who was a contractor, taking care of -- actually, he was NASA's data and photo- documentation supervisor, by contract.

In other words, he's the guy who got all the photos. And he's with us. Back in a moment.

(break for messages)

AB: Back now to Richard C. Hoagland and Ken Johnston. Ken, you were in the middle of something, so please continue.

KJ: Well, I was just explaining about whether or not - I think you were asking us whether we had seen any unusual features in the pictures?

AB: Right!

KJ: And the answer is, yes we did. You have to understand that I had kept these pictures for my own personal self - which were about a thousand pictures, inside of a plastic [album] - where I could flip through them.

Occasionally, someone would show some interest, and I'd flip through them and, you know - good little soldiers, we looked at them and we saw what we were told we were going to see.

But, when Richard and his team came over, and we took a serious look at it, and got out some loops - it was amazing the things that they had seen on some of those eighth to tenth generations that just stood out blatantly right on the pictures that I had.

AB: Alright, a fax: "Please ask Ken" - and I think you just answered it - "if he knew there were artifacts and/or structures or anything anomalous in the photos he possessed, before he met Richard."

KJ: Well, the answer I just gave, is no - I really didn't have a chance to pay that much attention to it. I guess when they came over and we started looking at them, and they started pointing out some of the features - I was taken aback, because here I had them in my possession for - well - eighteen to twenty-some odd years, and really never seriously set out and looked at them.

They were just great pictures of the lunar surface, as well as orbital shots and the astronauts in them. These were men that I'd worked with and knew quite well - when I was one of the consultant test pilots with Grumman on the lunar module.

I never considered that there might be something there that I wasn't told to see.

AB: Hiding in plain sight.

KJ: Absolutely.

RH: Art, this is very important, because a lot of people don't understand. They almost say: "Look Hoagland, if you're right, this stuff should be like New York City. Everybody should have seen it. You can't be right, because all of NASA can't be in on the conspiracy. You have to be 'out to lunch'."

And what Ken has just described, is a crucial piece of information and perspective. We tend to see in life, what we expect to see.

AB: That's right.

RH: And Ken's own experience - which is what I wanted him to relate to the National Press Corps this morning - is of an honest guy, doing a job; that was an eighteen to twenty hours-a-day, demanding, "Chinese-fire-drill" - of getting astronauts to and from the Moon, safely - as rapidly, rapid-fire "bang! bang! bang!" as possible.

Nobody had time, in the system, to look at and question details and photographs, when the official interpreters were telling them: "This is what you're seeing."

And it's that process of expecting to see what you expect to see, which I think accounts for the fact that you only require a tiny handful of people at the top - to manipulate a system.

So, everybody else, as honest as they are, and as hard-working, as motivated as they are - they just don't see it, because it's not blatantly obvious.

It requires an educated eye, to understand how to look at these photographs, to start with.

AB: Alright. Would you please give us a run-down - since the run-down was not given ahead of time - about who was there?

We know that Ken certainly was there. And who else did you have at the press conference, and what kind of reception did they get?

RH: Okay. In addition to Ken, we had Marvin Czarnik, who is an engineer. His experience goes back all the way to the Mercury program and Gemini. He was a key engineer, responsible for the rendevous radar development and implementation of procedures in Gemini - and later on, he helped train the Apollo crews in the development of rendevous techniques.

He was also involved, I believe, in environmental control systems. And basically, his experience was with the astronauts; with the day to day operations; with the engineering; with the process of going to and from the moon.

RH: And he then went to a major aerospace company, McDonnell-Douglas, where he spent a lot of time working with both NASA systems, as well military black-budgeted systems.

AB: Alright.

RH: And when he heard me at Ohio State a couple of years ago through the Internet, what Marvin did was to set up an independent team called LARG, or Lunar Artifacts Group, in St. Louis.

AB: Oh.

RH: And he presented the results of their team's five-person independent analysis of our claims - as Ohio State's.

And Ken, you might want to pick-up on some of the things that Marvin said this morning.

AB: Alright, please - Ken.

KJ: Well, I think it was the independent verification - it is one of the things that he has said he has done all along.

His team would go in and get the same negatives and pictures, and do their own independent research. And then I think it was shortly after that, that he got in touch with you, Richard - after he had checked it out himself.

And the same thing and way that Alex Cook did.

You know, these are very honest people that wanted to - I guess you might say: "From Missouri. Show me. I want to find out for myself."

RH: (laughing) In this case he is from Missouri. Ha, ha.

AB: Well, fair enough.

And this is good information, Richard, because a lot of people say you're "hanging out on a limb", by yourself - claiming things that just aren't true - with processed photographs that just don't show what you say they show.

But, there's been independent analysis of what you're saying.

RH: Which is crucial, and that is what I have been asking for from the start. Ken mentioned Alex Cook. Alex Cook was there representing, basically - "Mr. Joe Average" - although, I don't think that Alex could be called "average" - would you say, Ken?

KJ: No, not at all. He is certainly just a private individual. He rents his own darkroom.

RH: He represents the best and the brightest of ordinary folk, who are properly motivated. Alex is a young man. He's going to school; going to university up north of Seattle. He's married; has a child, I believe. He attended one of my presentations at the University of Washington, a couple of years ago.

And he saw this data for the first time - in fact I think I did that right after Ohio State. And he was so taken with the photographs that he followed my recommendation. He called up NASA. He started ordering frames on a student's budget. And you remember I told you, Art, that they've now gone up eight-hundred percent in price.

AB: Yes, correct.

RH: So, this represented a significant investment of student personal resources. When he got the frames back, one of the first things he immediately noticed was what he thought was the absolutely lousy quality of this frame, 4822.

And he called me up, and he was kind of bitching and moaning - and I asked him to look on the photograph to see if this structure we call "The Castle" - this glittering glass thing hanging nine miles above the moon - was present on his version of this frame.

AB: Yes.

RH: And he admitted - I mean he found it and he was quite excited, because this represented the first confirmation - outside of my Goddard source that had been provided to me initially - that an average person ordering the photograph through NASA could get this frame with this structure.

He then proceeded to send me the original negative, after he made duplicates and prints and all that, and when we got it and compared it to our own data, we then realized that Alex Cook had made a major step forward in the investigation, at that point.

Because, his frame, the "Cook 4822", contained the first stereo pair of "The Castle". An image taken a few minutes later showed it had changed angle and position over the surface, so we can get a 3-D stereo comparison to actually how big it is and how far away it is.

AB: Ken, would you agree with that assessment?

KJ: Oh, absolutely. That was one of the things that the crew did - is that they would take sequenced shots, timed - to give them a stereographic view of objects on the lunar surface.

AB: Alright, since you're the great expert in this area, Ken...

KJ: Uh-oh.

AB: How can one photograph - I assumed, wrong thing to do, of course - that one photograph would be assigned one number?

KJ: Well, that came as a surprise to me, because when we would be looking for specific views of the surface, as well as where lunar rocks and things were located, even stereo pairs had sequential numbering, back whenever we were getting the original data.

So, that was a surprise to me.

RH: We now have ten different versions of this one crucial frame, and they are all masquerading, Art, under the same frame number!

And for that reason alone, there should be a major inquiry!

If I have an "x" amount of dollars in my bank account, and the IRS comes to me and they say: "Wait a minute, Mr. Hoagland, you have "x" dollars times ten".

AB: Right.

RH: You know, people can get a little bit pissed off at that - at the federal level.

Well, here we have, for this one frame, ten times the number of images - all masquerading under one frame number and nobody has to be a rocket scientist to realize, "There ain't something right with all that."

AB: Well, alright. In your pre-press release, or press conference press release, you said you were going to have some photographs taken by Russians.

Did you display those?

RH: We actually ran out of time at the end and were not able to display those to the group this morning. But we do have two frames now, taken from the Zond-3 mission, which were in the press packets.

We had a lot of material in the press packets that they were able to take away from the conference - some of which we didn't get to, during the actual live presentation. We had hard copy. It was annotated. It had the proper background sourcing, and all that.

We now have a second frame from the Zond-3 mission, on July 20, 1965. And remember - the first Zond frame showed this 30-mile high dome-like protrusion of the lunar limb.

This second frame shows a twenty-some mile "Tower" - very massive tower - which is farther to the north, on the limb of a photograph taken a few seconds earlier. It's in this 28-frame sequence that we can't get our hands on, out of Moscow.

And it is pointed; it is aimed straight down toward the center of the moon. In other words, the Tower is a tower that knows where the local gravity should be pointing it.

AB: Sure. Ken, have you seen these photos?

KJ: Yes, I did and that was one of the most fascinating things I ever saw, when Richard showed them to me, because clearly - there's a dome on the rim of the lunar surface with the sun coming up behind it - and there's this huge chunk. It literally shows that it has been battered and beat, but it's still pretty much intact.

AB: Hmm. This is all so totally incredible.

RH: (laughing) You keep saying that, Art. What's incredible is not the data. What's incredible is the response of our government, and our major media to this data. That's the incredible part. Because - what this is really affirming - is what we're claiming. You're not getting the whole truth here.

AB: Obviously.

RH: That's the incredible part of this story.

KJ: I'd like to interject here. We put together the greatest minds - the brightest, the youngest, and the sharpest - that we could to get to the moon; and right after Apollo 17, we turned around and we started laying everyone off.

Right after Apollo 11, it was no longer research and development. It was routine flights to the moon; and Grumman laid off 30,000 right there. You had Ph.D's selling papers there in Houston.

And basically, once we got there and grabbed the data, and got back - they dismantled the whole system that got us there.

KJ: And basically, once we got there and grabbed the data and got back, they dismantled the whole system that got us there.

AB: That's right. That's right. We went and we've done nothing since, and it's a puzzle to many people.

I suppose you could suggest: "Well, we went to the moon - and this is the conventional wisdom - and didn't find anything, nothing special -- rocks -- that's about it -- and so there was no reason to go back"...

RH: I would not agree with that assessment.

KJ: Nor would I.

AB: Hmm. So, you had engineers. You had Ken, who was a photo-documentation supervisor with all of the photographs; first generation copies - right, Ken? - coming through you?

KJ: They would be the copies right off the first generation - positive transparencies that were taken.

RH: Now, see - this is a very important piece of information. When NASA sent the Apollo crews to the moon, for some reason - and we have our suspicions - but we don't have a memo describing why there wasn't any negative film sent.

In other words, they didn't send a roll of film - that when you bring it back and you develop it, you get a negative from which you can make the paper prints.

AB: Right.

RH: They sent transparency film; reveral film - slide film, really. Ektachrome-X , rated ASA 64, in 1969. And then from those transparencies, something called an inter-negative had to be made.

And from that inter-negative, you'd make your prints - so there was a two-stage process.

So, Ken's prints, actually, were not second generation; they were third generation - from the original data. And in that intermediate step, in that second generation process - is where we believe, that some interesting "hanky-panky" went on. Because...

KJ: Let me interject here.

AB: Sure.

KJ: That was one of the questions a lot of people asked when they looked at the pictures I had in my collection; - was -

"Why is the sky absolutely, totally black?"

And of course, the explanation I was given at the time was that with all the brightness on the lunar surface and the astronauts' white spacesuits - that you had to step down the focus on the... not the focus, but the ...

AB: The f-stop.

KJ: Yes, the f-stop; -- to the point to where it caused the sky and everything to be totally black. Now, that's the story we were given. That's the explanation I gave, up until just recently.

RH: (laughs).

AB: What is your more recent explanation?

KJ: I'm going to let Richard answer that one.

AB: Richard?

RH: Well, if you take a reversal film, and you expose it - if the moon was as advertised, alright? Even if you stop - if you open the lens wide and you had a time exposure of let's say, several seconds - the sky should still be absolutely black.

A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum.

There is supposed to be no air on the moon, you know, except for maybe light scattered in the lens, from the surface or the spacesuits - which would cause a kind of a greying-out.

That sky should be beautiful, velvet black; as black as the blackest night you can imagine.

AB: Yes.

RH: In fact, when you start looking at Ken's prints - which, now remember - are third generation from the originals, taken on the moon - there is a beautiful, very slight, bluish haze in the sky.

AB: A bluish haze?

RH: A very deep, deep, deep...

You know, looking at it with a bright light - just holding the print at the right angle - and I started to think:

"Wait a minute. Why is this sky not black?"

"Why does it have any haze at all?"

Because the photos were not over-exposed.

They were very well exposed; they were perfectly exposed.

They were - I mean these things have been sitting in archives for 30 years, and they were better, in terms of quality, than the photos we were seeing right out of the lab at NSSDC, just a few months before.

AB: What about the possibility of dust, that had been kicked up by the astronauts?

RH: Well - but dust would not remain suspended. And there was no sources of dust. I mean, you're in a vacuum. You're under 1/6th gravity. The stuff falls down.

I mean, gravity is gravity.

AB: That's true.

RH: No air to suspend.

Anyway, so, we put these photos under the optical scanner, and used the computer algorithms that we've been working with now for several years.

And the most amazing geometric patterns come out of this haze.

Because, what the computer is able to do - because it's sensing grey levels and light levels, below the human ability to detect.

AB: Sure.

RH: You know, light steps.

AB: Sure, oh sure.

RH: It is - the technology is better than the natural human eye. That's what technology does. It amplifies human senses. So, what we're doing, is simply amplifying information that's already there - and making it blatant.

Whereas, if you look at the print, you can barely see that there is something out of place. Now...

KJ: And this technology was not even available back then.

RH: No. And not even foreseen.

Now, here's where the "hanky-panky" comes in.

If we have the original transparencies - not the prints that Ken has ...

AB: Right.

RH: But the transparencies - it's my bet that we would have amazing detail in the sky that you could look at, by simply looking at a bright light; that those photographs were exposed to record the glittering glass domes, structures and ruins that are sticking up above the horizon.

That in fact, that was why NASA went with the transparency film; that they had a special film built, which had an ultraviolet-sensitive layer that would record that information even better than conventional Ektachrome-X film.

And that in the laboratory, by putting a filter in the optical enlarger when you made your inter-negative, they could remove almost all trace of that "offending" detail.

So, in essence, they had an almost fool-proof scheme, for taking pictures of real data on the moon, and giving to the American people and the press - and the world - a false, distorted version of the Moon that really is.

AB: Alright, so you had coverage by TeleMundo, worldwide?

RH: We had Australian Television. We had German Television. I did interviews. We were mobbed with cameras. Ken was mobbed with cameras. Alex was mobbed with cameras.

Fox did a very good interview here which ran coast to coast - at various times - on the Fox Network.

Very balanced coverage.

Right, Ken?

KJ: I think they were fair.

AB: Oh, they were fair? I'm glad to hear it.

Well, maybe this will be enough of a spark to ignite yet more massive coverage.

Ken, what's your attitude about that?

Do you think NASA will begin looking hard at this, now?

KJ: I certainly hope they will.

I will say this though, on the coverage that Fox gave, the one person that was the rebuttal - a young man - wasn't even born when these pictures were taken. And he's talking that we're "all wet".

I would hope they'd take it seriously, and come out and do the analysis.

We've recorded all the steps that they've done to look at these items and look at these artifacts.

And all they have to do, is just repeat the steps, and answer the question: "Is there something there, or not?"

AB: Alright. Gentlemen, I'll give you an option. I know you're both dog-tired. And I'm sure you feel the way I did after my book-signing. Kind of worn to a frazzle.

We could either continue, or we can let it go here.

RH: Well, I think we need to talk to some real folks, and I'll tell you why.

As we were building up, I got a lot of faxes and calls from people in your audience, that were basically giving us moral support.

And I think we deserve to answer some of their questions. And while we have Ken, this is a very important opportunity. Ken is feeling a little bit lonely right now.

And one of the things that I think he'd like to do - is to encourage other folks in NASA, who may have done the same thing he did - put data away.

You know - look at it inside [NASA], ask some questions - but don't quite know who to go to, to talk to about this; Ask them to come forward.

AB: Alright. Alright, we will do that, then.

RH: Because the more folks we get, the better the system will get.

AB: Richard, you've got to hold on, Richard.

Alright, both of you, hold on. We'll be back to you, shortly. You're listening to the CBC Radio Network. NEXT Half-Hour

http://www.enterprisemission.com/tran3.html

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 3 of 4 (Third Half-Hour)

(announcer leads in: "Now, here again, Art Bell".)

AB: Once again, here I am. Good evening, everybody.

We have with us, Richard C. Hoagland.

And we have a contractor to NASA. He is Ken Johnston and he took care of NASA's data and photo stuff. He was the documentation supervisor.

And he's just one of those who appeared with Richard Hoagland in Washington, D.C., at the National Press Club.

And we're talking with him, about what happened and what didn't happen.

And we'll get back to it in a moment...

Alright, as we go back to our two guests, this report of coverage by KABC Television in Los Angeles, tonight at 11:30 - actually, after we went on the air:

Female anchor:

"Well, the man that once said he found a human-like face - in a photograph - on Mars, tonight claims he spotted signs of an ancient civilization on the Moon.

Richard Hoagland held a news conference displaying magnified portions of pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface.

Now he sees a Grecian-like temple, a mile and a half-high formation - and what he calls a glass dome.

Apollo 12 astronaut, Alan Bean, said: "Not true". He took many of those photos; says he doesn't see any signs of civilizations or little Moon condos, or anything else."

Other anchor: "Maybe he needs new glasses."

Female: "Maybe".

AB: That was the essence of a newscast that ran at 11:30, on KABC Television, in Los Angeles...

Richard, you want to react to that?

RH: It's interesting about Alan Bean.

We have a film, that was released by NASA in 1969 called, "Apollo 12: Pinpoint for Science", which was the half-hour official NASA "PR" film on the Apollo 12 mission.

AB: Yes.

RH: And we have had that film analyzed, frame by frame. There are some remarkable sequences from that film.

And I have to describe how the film was made, because when the Apollo program was underway - what people have to understand is - there was this incredible demand for time.

Ken, how many hours a day were you putting in on Apollo, when you were there?

KJ: Well, for most of it - in the early 60's - we were putting in anywhere from 12 to 14 hours, 7 days a week.

It was - back in Bethpage, Long Island, at the final assembly plant for the Lunar Module, that we had one guy who had been doing that for like three years; Came in - clocked in - turned around - had a heart attack, and died.

Because that was extremely stressful to do that.

AB: My!

RH: So, between the missions, there was *no* pause. There was no "breathing" space. There was no time for reflection or analysis, or any kind of assignment process that a scientist would recognize.

So it was bang!, bang!, bang! - mission after mission after mission.

And right up to the Apollo 12 mission - which occurred in November of 1969 - NASA "PR" in Washington here, wanted film to get out to the news media.

AB: Yes.

RH: And the procedure was, that they would take the photos the astronauts had taken on the Moon - the still photos - they would make up prints; they would rush them over to this production house - I think it was in Houston, run by Ken Grimm, at the time; And they would put them on what's called an Ocks-Ferry animation stand.

And they would point a 16-millimeter camera at them; and they would pan the stills. And they would make their film from the film of the stills that the astronauts had taken.

On Apollo 12, the astronauts did not take any 16-millimeter motion picture film on the surface, outside the Lunar Module. They took Hasselblad stills - from still cameras mounted on the chest of their spacesuits. And then those were used to make up the film, as part of the elaborate production process when they came back.

Well, we noticed when one of our colleagues - the same gentleman who drove his equipment 10,000 miles from California - from Los Angeles to Goddard - when we put one of these original films, which is now 30 years old - it's faded; it's brittle; it breaks in the projector, in the Telecini - when we put it on the instrument and had him look at it, there were some remarkable peculiarities about this official NASA-released film.

And what I did was - I had him make a videotape copy of the film through this very high-quality electronic system which he's developed, based on German engineering, for the Hollywood film industry out in California.

State-of-the-art, Art, Okay?

AB: Yes.

RH: And I had him send it to me, and I put it through our computer process - which is able to take still frames, digitize them, enlarge them, and then using a variety of algorithms to enhance them.

And on those frames from NASA's own film, we have photographs of Alan Bean standing in front of stunning, geometric, tiered, recessed, buttressed lunar ruins - over and over, again.

AB: Well, then, what do you make of his statement?

RH: Let me get back to the statement, in a minute. Let me complete this thought.

What is really important, is that this film, "Pinpoint for Science" - was an official release document from NASA. It's all over the world. It's in libraries in every country. Every NASA Center, every major city should have this film.

AB: Alright, that underscores my question.

RH: Which means that people should be able to get access to it, and do the same thing with it that we've done with it.

So now we come back to Alan Bean, alright?

Alan Bean is claiming to ABC tonight, that he didn't see anything and as far as he knows, there is nothing there.

Now what I need to see, is the exact wording of his statement.

AB: Hmm.

RH: Remember, the art of politics - is the exact language.

AB: That's true.

RH: The State Department spends a fortune writing draft language for relations between countries, because a word or a comma, legally, has a whole different meaning.

What is very clear here - because we've got the evidence - is a situation very similar to Hillary Clinton's.

Hillary Clinton got a document out of her library the other day, that she wasn't supposed to have. We don't know how it got into her library. She claims she doesn't know how it got to her library - on the third floor of the White House.

But the document exists.

We have photographs of Alan Bean standing in front of ruins on the lunar surface.

AB: So, somebody ought to put that photo up in front of him and say: "What about this?"

RH: Exactly!

And until he is confronted, face-to-face, with this photo and asked: "How can you say it's not there, when it's there on official release prints - that NASA sent all over the world and all we've done is go back to the original NASA film and simply turn up the contrast?"

That's all we did.

AB: Alright, listen to me for a second, Richard. A serious question. This is from me.

RH: Okay.

AB: You've been talking about what could and could not be seen, according to certain filtering.

What do we know about the astronauts' visors?

RH: Good question. Excellent question.

The astronauts' visors were gold; and Ken, correct me at any point - where - if I'm wrong, here.

KJ: Okay.

RH: They were gold-plated, multiple-layer Lexan - which is a very hard plastic. And they had a pull-down gold Lexan covering, so that they could filter out ultraviolet light.

Now, the first thing I thought of - when we got these photographs, is: "Oh my God!" - I mean, here is the greatest tragedy in history. We send human beings to the moon, to explore the moon, to find what no one has found before - and because of the basic equipment they had - which was a filter that cut out ultraviolet - they missed seeing the most stunning obvious thing they should've seen - which is these tiered ruins around them made of glass, shining brightly in the ultraviolet.

AB: Could it be?

RH: No. And I'll tell you why.

Because we have photographs of the astronauts with those gold over-visors raised up, looking at the moon directly, with the unaided eye - through the plastic visor.

KJ: Right. Those were used when looking directly in "up sun" - looking toward the sun.

RH: And because these things glow most brightly, looking away from the sun - when you look at the Apollo 14 panoramas provided by Ken - you can see Shepard's shadow extending out, and the stuff in the sky - the crud, the glass, the domes, the ruins - are most brightly visible away from the sun; when you would put the visor up so you could see.

AB: Alright, Ken...

RH: And, there's another thing.

AB: Yes?

RH: On Apollo 12, from Ken's archive, we have photographs of Pete Conrad looking at Bean, and Bean looking at Conrad, and taking pictures of each other - and we have ruins reflected in the visors of the other astronaut.

AB: Alright, Ken, you were a NASA data and photo-documentation supervisor, or under contract to do that for NASA - do you - have you seen these same things that Richard is now talking about?

KJ: Yes I have.

In fact, that's what I was saying; when they first came over to my house and we just took out a normal - I guess, what were those? - about a five or ten power little loupe.

RH: Yes, we had little photographic loupes that Kerry carries around.

KJ: Right, right. And you could actually see some of these right there. In fact, my wife discovered one of the first ones, and that set us all off.

Kind of like on an Easter egg hunt, almost.

AB: Well,...

RH: There's something else, Art. Alright?

AB: Yes? Yes?

RH: Two years ago, when Alan Bean - it's interesting that Alan Bean has been picked - obviously he's been picked, because we cited him at the press conference this morning as one of the guys that we've got photographs of, standing in front of these things - we also have the Lunar Module parked right in front of one of these step-tiered buttresses, which is identical to the same kind of buttressing we see on the Apollo 14 data - 122 miles away, but at a greater distance.

In other words, we've got convergent data on two different data sets: the NASA film and the prints that Ken put away in the archive - and they are two different sources and they're showing us the same stuff. That's called science.

But let me get back to Bean, alright?

AB: Sure.

RH: The thing that strikes me about Bean, is that Bean is/was a visual guy. Alan Bean, when he retired from the Astronaut Corps, became an artist.

Alan Bean is a professional artist and he's a damn good artist.

I used to do art when I was in the museum game. Back in Springfield, one of the things that I did was - I painted.

And when I went to NBC as an unpaid consultant. The night of the first Surveyor landing, I came back to the museum from New York, in '65 - '66, and I painted the version of what it would have been like to stand on the Moon next to Surveyor, looking up at the Earth - which still hangs in the Museum of Science in Springfield, Massachusetts.

One of my heroes was Chesley Bonstelle, who was the first real, realistic space illustrators of this century.

When Alan Bean retired from being an astronaut, he took his talent and turned into a professional space illustrator. And he has produced all kinds of artwork - centering and moving around the theme of the Apollo missions to the Moon.

So, his artistic background and training and curiosity and talent, was honed to a fine 'art' - pun intended - in terms of his later profession.

And he's done some very, very striking work, which has captured the essence of the Apollo spirit and what we all thought was going on.

AB: Well, this makes it all the more difficult.

RH: Listen to this.

He was asked in an interview - Art, if this was simple, anybody would be doing it. There's a profound mystery here; we've got to get to the bottom of the mystery. When Alan Bean was asked by Newsweek, in 19... two years ago? When was the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11? The 25th anniversary was 1995?

AB: Five.

RH: Oh. Okay.

AB: Last year.

RH: Last year.

When Newsweek did a special issue on Apollo, and the space program -

AB: Yes.

RH: They interviewed a lot of the astronauts: "Where were you then, and where are you now; what do you think, and where should we be going?" And all that.

AB: Right.

RH: The reporter asked specifically - the correspondent asked Alan Bean: "What did space look like from the lunar surface?"

And Bean's reaction is stunningly insightful.

And I would like to ask him face-to-face about it, because he looked thoughtful.

And then he said: "You know it's always puzzled me".

He said: "It resembled black, patent-leather shoes."

AB: Ha!

RH: Now, think about this.

This is an artist remembering a visual impression, stored in the subconscious.

What's the hallmark of black, patent-leather shoes? They're black, yes.

AB: Yes.

RH: But, they're "shiny" black.

AB: Hmm.

RH: Space should be velvet-black. It should be inky-black. It should be infinity, unending, deep, endless black.

It shouldn't be shiny.

And his artist memory was remembering - that during the moon walks, the sky looked like patent-leather shoes.

AB: Fascinating.

RH: I rest my case.

AB: Alright. Here's one for you, again.

Look, if you had the Russian pictures you talk about, and they clearly show large structures - why in the world would you not have shown them right away, to catch the attention - right away - of the press?

KJ: Can I jump in on that one?

AB: Yes, you may. Sure.

KJ: Okay.

The same thing is that we discussed how to present this material, and because it's kind of a progressive process - because when you first look at it, you say: "Oh, well, that's the Moon." I mean, we've been looking at the Moon for thousands of years, and seeing it; and we wanted to present it in such a way - building up to a climax - to show the items of glass, which were so blatant.

So, we were in a process of getting there - and then we got cut short.

AB: Oh, brother!

RH: We also were building credibility. Remember, we're making an extraordinary claim, and I wanted to put forward people like Marv Czarnik...

AB: Of course.

RH: And Ken and Ron Nicks. Ron Nicks was our resident geologist on the panel, this morning. He has extensive background with Parsons and other major engineering firms in the oil industry.

He stood up there for 10 -15 minutes. And again, Ken, you could testify - if you would like.

He basically said: "I'm looking at these pictures, and as a geologist, I cannot explain what is in these pictures".

"This is no moon I have ever learned about."

AB: Correct, Ken?

KJ: Absolutely correct. He said that he had no earth model to be able to explain the anomalies and things that he was looking at.

AB: Alright, well see - this begins to add substance then, certainly to your claims - Richard. And so much so, I would think - that, at the very least - it ought to be more than a "chuckle item" at the end of a newscast. And it ought to engender some serious investigation, even by NASA - ha, ha.

RH: Unless Art, we really don't want to know.

AB: Unless we don't want to know. Well...

RH: I am beginning to feel - that we're dealing much less with conspiracy - which is a word I'm becoming to really detest...

AB: I know.

RH: Than with what I call, "an unconscious unwillingness to shake reality." There is an awful lot of people that are comfortable - living in their illusion.

AB: Yes.

RH: We create the world around us - to make us feel more comfortable.

AB: Well, the one area, Richard, that I disagree with you in...

RH: Okay.

AB: Is the effect this information would have on the present scientific and religious paradigms; I think it would wreak havoc. I know you think everybody's ready; they're not.

I wish you could have been around to get some of the calls I've had, from devout Christians - who would be horrendously challenged and shaken, if your information was validated.

Now, that's a lot of people in America, Richard.

RH: So, you're basically saying there is a political reason to keep it quiet?

AB: That's right. Of course I am.

RH: Okay. I mean - but we have to get this out on the table. You know, people say to me: "Why wouldn't NASA make this public?" "Wouldn't this be a 'gold card' for NASA"? "Wouldn't this unloose the space program"? And what you have just said, Art, is one of the most important, salient pieces of analysis - which is the motivation.

In other words, Brookings is "alive and well." We have not grown up, according to this. We really would be devastated. There would be tremendous, systemic changes - which certain people, in positions of power, have simply decided: "We are not going to allow." "Period." "End of discussion."

AB: Alright.

RH: Which is why it is a "giggle" item at the end of the evening news.

AB: Yes, alright. Look, you've got these Russian pictures. You didn't get a chance to show them at the press conference, because now, I understand, you got caught out of time - you had to clear the area. But what about getting them up on my Internet site?

RH: Oh yes. When I get back to New York, I'm going to be putting all of the images we had at the Press Club - up on your site.

AB: Oh, excellent!

RH: Yes, well I mean - I've been planning this.

AB: Will there also be, some sort of - if nothing else - condensed transcript?...

RH: Yes.

AB: Of what occurred at the press conference?

RH: Yes, there will.

AB: And you can get that at the Website?

RH: We will. Alright?

AB: Alright, good.

Now, Ken, you've got your neck out - a couple of miles or more - here. And how much consideration did you give to going public, before you did?

KJ: Well, fortunately I'm 53 years old now. At the time, I was probably one of the youngest engineers involved in the program. And each time I listen to Richard talk, I realize that that limb is getting a little further out there.

Hopefully there are other people - in fact, I know that there has to be. Yesterday when I was listening to Richard talk - he was talking about the fact that most of the documentation and stuff on how to build the Apollo 5, the Saturn 5 spacecrafts - has been - I believe you said, Richard - has been destroyed; or has been retrieved, or what have you...

RH: The FBI went around the country - after Apollo - and they literally called back the blueprints from the contractors, from engineers, from private consultants - and they destroyed them.

We could not build a Saturn 5 today, if our lives depended on it. We would have to "re-invent the wheel."

KJ: A lot of us had the Apollo Operations Handbooks - for the Command Service Modules, for the Lunar Modules.

AB: Ken, hold it there for one second. We're at the bottom of the hour and we'll come back to you after the bottom of the hour, Ken - and pursue this.

Ken Johnston, contactor to NASA - NASA's data and photo-documentation supervisor. And Richard Hoagland. Back in a moment.

(- break for messages -) NEXT Half-Hour

http://www.enterprisemission.com/tran4.html

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 4 of 4 (Last Half-Hour)

(Announcer: "This is the CBC Radio Network.")

AB: It absolutely is. I bid you all "good-morning."

Richard C. Hoagland is with us. A contractor to NASA, Ken Johnston - who took care of NASA's photo-analysis; He was actually a photo-documentation supervisor there.

And we'll get back to them in just a moment.

I've got a summary now, of the news conference, already on the Internet. That didn't take very long, did it?

AB: Alright, from a transcript of the press conference at the Press Club, in Washington, D.C.: Skipping down to our guest, Mr. Johnston - he's at the podium. He's giving his background.

In 1966, he left the Marines, and was a consultant and test pilot with Grumman. He amassed 3000 hours as a pilot, himself. He was test command pilot at the Johnson Space Center.

Mr. Johnston is describing photos he saw - while he was in charge of the photo archive at the Johnson Space Center. He is describing a viewing of one of the films taken by the astronauts, on Apollo footage - with "plumage" that was removed from this film, within 24 hours - mysteriously.

He was at Johnson through all the missions.

Mr. Johnson is showing letters, verifying that he gave Hoagland the photos of Apollo 14 - that he has here at the conference.

Is that about accurate, Sir?

KJ: That's very good. I'm surprised you got it that quick.

AB: Well...

RH: Susan was very good. Let's hear it for Susan Karaban. She's editor for Martian Horizons, who was typing furiously during the whole conference. And experiencing a "baptism of fire" in the IRC Chat area.

AB: That's what I heard - "baptism of fire". Okay, again - describing viewing one of the films taken by the astronauts, on Apollo footage with plumage that was removed from that film within 24 hours - tell us about that, please.

KJ: Well, on that particular case, this was Apollo 14.

After we had received the film, right after the astronauts had returned to the earth, it had been processed in the NASA photo lab. It was my responsibility to put together a private viewing for the chief astronomer - that was Dr. Thornton Page and his associate and contributing scientists.

I took the film over and set it up into what is called a "sequence camera;" it's kind of like one of the gun cameras they use in the military - where you can stop, freeze frame, go forward, back up and zoom in.

And we were viewing the Apollo 14 footage coming around the backside of the Moon as we were approaching a large crater. Now, due to the sun angle on the frontside that you would be looking at - (you'd probably be looking at more of a crescent at that point on the backside) - in the shadows in the craters, covering about half the crater - this particularly large crater showed a cluster of about five or six lights down inside the rim.

And this column or plume - or outgassing or something, coming up above the rim of the crater, where we could see that - at that point Dr. Page had me stop and freeze, and back up; and go back and forth several times.

And each time, he'd pause a second and looking at that; and he finally turned to his associates and said: "Well, isn't that interesting!"

And they all chuckled and laughed and Dr. Page said: "Continue".

Well, I finished up that viewing and I was told to check it back into NASA bonded storage in the photo lab. The next day, I was to check it back out and show it to the rank-and-file engineers and scientists at Johnson Space Center.

While we were viewing it the second time, and several of my friends were sitting next to me, I was telling them: "You can't believe what we saw on the backside of the Moon!" "Wait until you see this view."

And as we were approaching the same crater, and we went past the crater - there was nothing there!

I stopped the camera, took the film out to examine it - to see if anything had been cut out - and there was no evidence of anything being cut out. I told the audience that we were having "technical difficulties;" put it back in and finished.

That afternoon, I ran into Dr. Page over at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory and asked him what had happened to the lights and the outgassing, or steam we saw; and he kind of grinned and gave me a little twinkle and a chuckle and said:

"There were no lights. There is nothing there".

And he walked away. And we were so busy, I didn't get a chance to question him again.

AB: See, this is the kind of thing, that it seems to me - they cannot ignore. Now, during the news conference, Sarah McLendon - I'm well familiar with Sarah...

RH: Yes.

AB: White House reporter, apparently was there, and she asked: "Who constructed these artifacts"? Another journalist is wondering why the SETI program which appears to be searching for extraterrestrial life - yet ignores this data. That's a damn good question: Spending what - a 100 million dollars with SETI, or something?

RH: No, not really. It's not that much.

AB: Whatever it...

RH: It's more like ten million.

AB: Alright. Ten million dollars. And here's Richard Hoagland, at a press conference with people like Ken Johnston and engineers and others - and they ignore it.

RH: Well, what I said, I believe, in response was - that the whole premise of SETI is that there are mathematical symbols that would be coming in on radio. There would be coded symbols that would differentiate between background radio static in radio telescope, and an actual ET signal directed toward the earth.

And what we have found in the NASA data is geometric mathematical-coded data - not in a radio wave - but in pictures and photographs.

And we actually have found that same data on the Moon - in terms of the Clementine data, which we do not have time to get into tonight.

The whole point of this press conference is - there's a whole perspective on the NASA experience that has been restricted from those outside of the agency.

AB: Hmm.

RH: And when you try to bring it to the ordinary press person, or even the interested press person - because they don't have the background, you've got to start at "square one."

AB: Alright.

RH: Even with two hours, there was not enough time to present all of what we had assembled. And we had really winnowed down to the best - because we had to present the credentials and the credibility of our presenters to start with.

AB: Of course.

RH: Now, Sarah McLendon. This is a person I really admire, as one of the few people in the press who still has the "old school" integrity.

AB: You bet!

RH: Sarah McLendon, initially, was not interested at all in coming. When my press people called her up, she said: "Mars, Mars. I don't care about Mars." "I care about people and stuff here on Earth."

AB: (laughing).

RH: And she really was fighting, and my press person put me on the phone on a conference call. In 30 seconds, Art - she agreed to come. She said this is the "most important thing I can do."

She came in a wheelchair this morning. She wasn't feeling well. She was working with an "eagle-eye" at these pictures. She has now invited me to come back to Washington next week, on the 27th, and present this data to her group of investigative reporters that she is schooling at the National Press Club. And she's even going to take me to dinner.

AB: Well then, maybe there has been something significant that has come from this.

RH: There has been. And what I'm going to ask her to do is to basically - at the next press conference - put the question to Bill Clinton directly:

NASA, Richard C Hoagland, & Expat are all full of Shit!

Thursday, April 4, 2013

"Dr" Stuart Robbins & James Oberg

Monday, March 18, 2013

FBI arrests NASA contractor employee trying to flee to China

FBI arrests NASA contractor employee trying to flee to China

Richard Pollock

Watchdog Team

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Proving His Pointy Little Head

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Photographic Film Cameras Don't Function in Sub Zero Temperatures

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Art Bell interviews Richard Hoagland & Ken Johnston

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 1 of 4 (First Half-Hour)

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 2 of 4 (Second Half-Hour)

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 3 of 4 (Third Half-Hour)

Transcript of Interview on the 3/21/96 Art Bell Program of

Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston

Part 4 of 4 (Last Half-Hour)

Final Words From Tom Talley